Carrot Top sez: Be calm and quiet in large crowds.
Posted on 01/03/2007 7:46:07 AM PST by KantianBurke
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday asked the Democratic-controlled Congress to give the White House line-item veto power to control spending.
As he prepares to deal with an opposition Congress for the first time, Bush is also asking lawmakers to extend tax cuts.
Bush made the requests in a Rose Garden statement and in an opinion column published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.
The line-item veto would allow the president to cut specific spending from legislation without vetoing the entire bill.
In the opinion piece, Bush warned that the Democrat-controlled Congress risks stalemate if it resorts to "politics as usual" and tries to "pass bills that are simply political statements."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Fer cryin' out loud, George... There are some subjects you should just keep your mouth shut about. Right now, spending is one of them.
I have responded to them in tremendous detail, with cites and facts. You simply don't want to be bothered by the facts as you poke your fingers into your ears, scrunch shut your eyes and start yelling "Bush basher!" at those making valid criticisms and comments about this subject.
Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. He has proposed large spending increases of his own. Logic dictates that he should start doing the former and stop doing the latter before calling for new line-item veto powers that already have been shot down by SCOTUS.
To sane people, that indicates he simply is not being serious here. Nor are you.
Dubya was for big spending before he was against it.
That is not correct. The constitution calls for a bill to be presented to the prez for signature or veto - or no action:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it
There is nothing there about line-item vetoes. It would take an Amendment to create this process.
So, for six years with a repub congress no veto's whatsoever; incoming dem congress, he wants to get line item power?
Did W go back to smoking crack or something?
Exactly .. it's all in the wording and the procedures
Like the abortion Bills .. if Congress would put in the "health of the mother" .. then the SCOTUS wouldn't knock down so many Abortion Bills
"I have responded to them in tremendous detail, with cites and facts. You simply don't want to be bothered by the facts as you poke your fingers into your ears, scrunch shut your eyes and start yelling "Bush basher!" at those making valid criticisms and comments about this subject."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1761784/posts?page=60#60
I think the reasoning used by the USSC in overturning line item veto is that it gave the President what amounted to the power to rewrite legislation presented to him by Congress. Since the Constitution doesn't give the executive branch power to write legislation, they overturned it. IMHO, that was the right decision.
Interestingly, if memory serves, the constitution of the Confederate States of America, 1861, did give the exectutive branch a line item veto.
"Dubya was for big spending before he was against it."
You're right! That war on Terrorism should have been funded by raising our Taxes, RIGHT?
LOL! The president must think we are stupid indeed...
No, considering that he did absolutely nothing about it when he had Republican majorities in both houses it's appropriate to doubt his sincerity.
So you don't really have anything? I thought you would at least explain why President Bush has signed so many big spending bills and has failed to veto ANY of them. His only veto was for philosophical reasons, IIRC.
lol!
Although it is laughable, it also makes you sad to see Bush reduced to such transparent political gimmicks as this one.
LOL.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
And it will be, eventually....
Actually, that war on terrorism would best be funded with all those tax dollars squandered on the prescription drug program.
He didn't HAVE anything; those guys spent these last six years "positioning" themselves for their re-election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.